Policy for Conflict Resolution - Case Study Example

Business Law Examination Student name Institution Affiliation Dispute resolution Dispute resolution procedure and prevention is an integral component of effective organizations. Complaints if well – managed is an opportunity to strengthen customer relationships which has been strained due to complain (Thompson, Neale, & Sinaceur, 2004). Their research findings established that proper dispute resolution is a strategy that can be used for customer retention. My employer, XY Bank Ltd has put in place a policy for conflict resolution. Below is an extract from our dispute resolution policy at XY Bank Ltd. To our esteemed customers you are the reason for our existence. Sometimes you may be unhappy with our services or our products that we offer at XY Bank Ltd. Please feel free to tell us by raising complaint, incase the issue remains unresolved effectively then bring it to our customer service team through our call centre. Submit your compliment as well wherever we have served you better or exceeded your expectation. You can reach us through below contacts details:- Our telephone number is 153500 between 8.00 am to 10 pm from Monday to Friday and 9.00 am to 6pm during weekends or by post service through our mail address, XY Bank Ltd Ground Floor, Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street, SYDNEY, NSW, AUSTRALIA, 2003. Our email system is info@xybank.com.au. We at XY Bank limited are committed to give you feedback within two days after logging in the issue with us. Our process is simple and you can keep track of every step through our website dispute work in progress column using in your national identification number as your log in password in our website while the user name shall remain to be your full names as they appear in complain reference number. Once you are able to access the website you will find the progress of your case, the person assigned, his or her full details including contact details for ease of follow up. Each case depending on it technicalities may take different days before final answer is delivered. Where you can get full details of the person assigned your case for any further queries. Not all cases have equal weighting, for cases that require thorough investigation may take longer at least more than twelve days. In few cases we may work for more than 12 days especially for investigations but we shall keep you informed on the reasons for the delay and provide you with weekly updates on our progress with your complaint. In such cases we shall specify a date when likely a decision shall be reached. In case the complaint is a transaction errors, wrong debit or credit then we shall adjust your account including charges and any accrued interest and promptly notify you on our action. Incase we rule that your account is not incorrectly debited then we shall provide you with supporting documents for your verification. We shall accept full responsibility for your loss if we do not follow this policy and processes, fails to allocate liability and fails to furnish you with prompt updates on our findings. If you remain to be unsatisfied in our internal dispute resolution process, you may forward to Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This is an independent and impartial organization mandated to resolve disputes on banking and insurance services. We encourage you to try to solve your dispute with us first before contacting FOS. The FOS contact details: Phone 1400 780800 Monday to Friday from 9.00 am to 5.30 pm . Fax: 03 9122 6233. Website is fos.org.co.ke. Email: info@fos.org.ke If XY Bank Limited would like to ensure that all disputes are ‘nipped in the bud’ before our customers refers the same to financial Ombudsman. We have to acknowledge customers complaint and try to understand the issue before giving solutions. We need to treat each compliant seriously not brush off any customer complaint or to consider the customer to be a bother at our premises. The fact is one complaint suggests that some other customers have the similar experience and has not complained, another research findings is that customers tell three or more other people before they tell you. The organization need to arrange for customers feedback forum, finding out their scoreboard in the eyes of their customers and use such data to improve their services. All the staff needs to be endowed with basic skills on managing complaints effectively as well properly trained on organization complaints policy and procedures at the entire branch network. Customers complain should not only be managed at the call centre or customer service head office but should be decentralized to each service centre nominating their complaint contacts who is will be equipped by organization to equip other staffs with similar skills of handling customers complaints. (Sherwyn, Tracey, & Zev, 2010). The bank also needs to periodically review it complain handling policy. Keeping every complaint and check consistency in nature and type of complain. Such review will assist to identify customer service weaknesses in the organization, the staff complaint handling skills, nature and type of complaints most occurring and management approaches to addressing customers issues. The other way to avoid complaint is to provide customers with quick feedback over issues they have raised serve them courteously and practice listening to them as opposed to talking. Avoid customer complaints by practicing honesty and upholding to business ethics while engaging with our customers. Above all in every dispute, Australia Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 encourages all parties in dispute to take genuine steps in providing solution before resorting to court recourse. Organizations should adopt a strategic approach to disputes resolutions which entail managing disputes early, embrace a culture of dispute resolution, use data or information about the disputes in appropriate manner, and minimize risks and errors during disputes resolution process. In any dispute resolution case the first assumption is that both parties shall take reasonable steps to resolve the issues and they shall follow procedures enacted by the dispute resolution act. Secondly, the opponents are enemies until agreement is reached or clear explanation is given. Role of Basel II and Basel III Basel II came to enforcement on June, 2004. It was published by Basel Committee on Banking Supervision which is tasked with responsibility of checking financial and operational risks banking and insurance businesses likely to face. On it theoretical basis, Basel II tried to accomplish this objective through setting up risk and capital management systems which was designed for all banks to have an adequate capital (Barr, 2013). Proponents of this model believed that such financial arrangement would offer adequate protection to the banking sector incase of collapse by a major financial institution in an economy. In application to this rule, financial institutions are expected to assess the risks they face in their normal operations and provide equivalent amounts to offer protection to the funds invested to them by their customers. The overall objectives were to reduce any financial impact credit, market, and operation risk may bring forth to an economy. Basel III was introduced to replace Basel II after several failures were cited on the framework as having contributed to financial crisis of 2008. Patrick (2012) narrated several incidences which emerged resulting to the creation of Basel III. Basel III came in application to strengthen bank capital requirements; the focus was on bank liquidity, and focus was to reduce bank leverage. The original requirements from 2010 with enforcement of Basil III was banks to hold 4.5% of their common equity from the initial requirement of 2% in Basil II as well as increase tier I capital to 6% from 4 % which was being held in Basil II of the bank risk- weighted assets (RWA) (Patrick, 2012). Therefore Basel III introduced an additional capital buffer of 2.5% which was made to be mandatory for all banks and during periods of high credit growth an additional discretionary counter – cyclical butter up to another 2.5% would be expected to be required by the regulator. This required raising the quality of their credit loan book, consistency and transparency of capital base. Basel III framework on the other hand introduced a simple non risk based leverage ratio to supplement the risk based requirement in Basel II. The role of this leverage ratio was to restrict build up of leverage within financial institutions to avoid destabilizing deleveraging approaches which can in turn damage the overall financial systems and economy. Basel III introduced the concept of minimum leverage ratio. This ratio was to be calculated by dividing Tier I capital with the bank’s average consolidated assets. From 2013 July, banks were expected to maintain an additional excess of 3% leverage under Basel III. This was meant to strengthen risk coverage of capital framework. This was to be done through strengthening counter party credit exposures, repo and all types of securities financing transactions and increase risk management of counter party credit exposures. Nicolas and Firzli (2012) stated that, in Basel III, a supplementary measure to Basel II was to be introduced which was supposed to put a floor rate under build up leverage in the financial institutions. It role was to introduce an additional risk model which was to adopt an error measurement and focus more on bank total risk exposures. This was meant to introduce and promote build capital that a bank can withdraw during periods of stress (Barr, 2013). By reducing pocyclicality; but promote counter cyclical buffers. These kind policies were to be achieved through; conservation of capital to build buffers and to promote and encourage forward looking provisions that are intended to protect the banks against recessionary market risks. The requirements expect banks to be able to estimate the probabilities of loan defaults, and the downturn loss given default, in Basel II was to become mandatory. Banks were supposed henceforth in application to the new requirement to conduct stress tests which includes among other things like widening credit spreads during period recessions. And more so they were suppose to introduce new approach to accounting provisioning which recognize and advocate for change in the accounting standards to provisioning expected loss (Barr, 2013). And all international active banks were expected to introduce 30 days liquidity coverage ratio. The other distinctive difference of Basel II and Basel III is Basel II requires banks to analyze the ability for payback the loans before they decide to lend. Basel III replaced Basel II where requirements for capital are prioritized; the focus now is in ability to manage capital fluctuations during financial crisis (Nicolas & Firzli, 2012). Barr (2013) in his investigation established that the net effects of application of Basel III to Gross Domestic Product would be is yet not promising to financial sector. The intended purposes are yet to be realized. He stressed further that the economic outputs would be only affected by increased lending rates, as banks pass over the funding cost to their customers as a result of higher capital spreads. However, the new approach to capital regulation has been criticized being only modification to Basel II and offer nothing new (Patrick, 2012). The major modifications that were made in Basel III is increased capital requirements, reduced leverage, introduction of liquidity reforms by enacting principle of sound liquidity risk management principle, increased short term liquidity coverage, and increased long term funding for balance sheet Data Privacy, confidentiality, and protection of property rights Data privacy, confidentiality, and protection of property rights and responsibility are becoming a challenge in the 21st century with the innovation of cloud computing network infrastructure. These challenges are experienced in trans-border data flows and e-commerce transactions. The issues being raised is related to information privacy and confidentiality. The normal data protection policies and guidelines were very clear, it could be very easy to trace whoever processed the data, where it is stored and insert appropriate security protection measures to safeguard against data misuse and offer adequate privacy and confidentiality to the organization. Nowadays, with cloud computing technology privacy and confidentiality of data is becoming unattainable legislations on the part of organization or nations interested in offering full protection to their citizen against malicious access to unauthorized persons. Information in cloud infrastructure can be stored anywhere within the world where there is availability of server in an offshore location, and matters to do with executions of transactions in foreign nations. This paper shall examine three different nations response to the emerging issues in information privacy, confidentiality, and protection of property rights taking the case of United States, Australia and India. Helmer (2009) noted that the greatest problem with data privacy issues is rules and procedures nations enact to offer data and information protection to overseas. In the new emerging technology innovation using cloud computing infrastructure this is creating a very significant challenge as most big cloud computing service providers like Amazon’s, is based solely and partly on overseas server locations. The subject of data integrity, data protection and data confidentiality wherever data is transferred oversees (Christie, 2013) In Australia, the current legislation on Privacy Act 1988 outlines the core protections for any private data which is being transferred outside Australia borders through the country extra- territorial application (Helmer, 2009). The purpose of the act has been defined to protect any Australian citizen to take reasonable care in ensuring that they only deal with credible institutions with proper data protection policies. The act defines national principles on how large corporations, health service providers should handle personal information of people. The essence is any data leaving Australia needs to continue enjoy full protection as if it is still within the country. Transfer of data to overseas land has to seek for consent of individual who originated the data or consent of a person who is subject to law. The principle in practice is fair handling of information in accordance to National Privacy Principles. Cavoukian (2006) similarly argued that the ease by which data can be transferred to overseas location nowadays prompted the revision of privacy principles of Australia and calls for change in the jurisdictions of data privacy and protection needs to be harmonized. On the same note, it is important for an Australian to feel that they are safe wherever their personal information is transferred offshore such data will be protected just like the kind of legislation that protects their data in their home country (Helmer, 2009).Therefore Australian government did amendment to Privacy Amendment Legislation; they suggested new principles to adopt accountability approach. This approach required that all organizations storing data which can identify any citizen of Australia at overseas locations must ensure that their country operates within the principles of privacy that is outlined in Australia privacy guiding principles. The principle envisages that due diligent will be taken by that organization before any data is transferred outside Australia. Before any cross border disclosure of information is done, appropriate arrangements have to be made. United States enacted legislation USA PATRIOT Act 2001, in which it outlined risks posed by nations as they transfer data outside United States especially to servers which are located in United States. Christie (2013) stated that Private data stored in United States is at a very high risk of being accessed due to the fact that once data passes to another party it longer private data and can be accessible by authorities without any consent being sought. Secondly, since the enactment of USAPATRIOT, the initial requirement of justifying electronic surveillance has been relaxed, this has been adopted by foreign intelligence. It is upon that similar basis that it more risky to transfer any data from Australia to United States, however United States host most of the major servers for cloud computing network infrastructure. The India Information Technology amendment Act 2008, outlines compensation for incase any organization or legal entities handles personal data or becomes negligent of handling sensitive information or violates the privacy and confidentiality standards established by the law. The same act required that all corporate bodies must publicize in their websites their security policies, the type of personal data they collect, purpose and usage (Christie, 2013). This is easy to be accessed incase any Australia would like to trade with any body corporate, and then the first thing is to check their security policy if it can offer adequate security principles to what Australia government stipulates. Trans-border data flows, property rights, confidentiality, and privacy issues with regard to cloud adoption are offering greatest challenge (Cavoukian, 2006). It is necessary that any business who would like to transfer data offshore should exercise care and due- diligence to minimize the risk of falling shortfall of privacy, regulation and protections issues especially to nations that cannot protect them similarly like the Australian law. With cloud computing, the responsibility for data protection lies with the individual users, in absence of proper regulatory rules, users have to protect themselves by developing proper agreements with any provider of cloud computing which specify recourse incase of non violation of the agreement terms subsequent to the contract (Helmer,2009) References Barr, D. G. (2013). What We Thought We Knew: The Financial System and Its Vulnerabilities. England: Bank of England Press. Cavoukian, Ann (2006). Who Knows: Safeguarding Your Privacy in A Networked World (paperback). Random House of Canada: Random House. Christie, A (2013) .Australia: Cloud computing and the new Australian privacy law Privacy Update (Australia) Last Updated: 24 September 2013 Helmer, G. M. (2009) .Cracking Down: FCC Initiates Enforcement Action Against Hundreds of Telecommunications Carriers For Failing to Certify Compliance With Customer Privacy Rules Security, Privacy and the Law, Foley Hoag, LLP, Patrick, S. (2012). Systemically Important Banks and Capital Regulations Challenges. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5kg0ps8cq8q6-en Thompson, L., Neale, M., & Sinaceur, M. (2004). The evolution of cognition and biases in negotiation research: An examination of cognition, social perception, motivation, and emotion. 3(5), 10-15. Nicolas, M., & Firzli,J. (2012). A Critique of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Revue Analyse Financière, 2(5), 2-5 Sherwyn, D., Tracey, B., & Zev, E. (2010).In Defense of Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes: Saving the Baby, Tossing out the Bath Water, and Constructing a New Sink in the Process. 2 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 73:5-45 Read More